For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap
By
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/lawrence_k_altman/index.html?inline=nyt-per>LAWRENCE
K. ALTMAN, M.D.
Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and
scientific journals have called into question as never before the
merits of their peer-review system.
The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to
critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is to weed out sloppy
and bad research, ensuring the integrity of the what it has published.
Because findings published in peer-reviewed journals affect patient
care, public policy and the authors' academic promotions, journal
editors contend that new scientific information should be published
in a peer-reviewed journal before it is presented to doctors and the public.
That message, however, has created a widespread misimpression that
passing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good
Housekeeping seal of approval.
see
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin
for full article - need to join for free
Evi Adams
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html